*** The Official CUCKposting thread ***

[spoonitnow]

So what if B gets out of the hospital and gets hit by lightening. Now he can barely afford to pay his first bill and has to sell his house to pay his second one. Meanwhile A is living the high life and sleeping with supermodels. Tough shit?

Yes. A is under no obligation, moral or otherwise, to pay for B's misfortune. Forcing A to pay for B's misfortune is theft.

If every time I point out an inequality arising through no fault of a person's own, you call that defining them as a victim as if that's some artificial construct I've come up with, then you must believe there is no such thing as good or bad luck in terms of people's salaries.

What I said was: "...your first inclination is to define B as a victim." You seem to misunderstand what I mean, so I'll clarify: My first inclination is to assume that he's strong enough as a human being to overcome his hardships (which can include accepting charity given voluntarily from A or some other party) and achieve his potential, whatever that may be after his hardships, in spite of those hardships. One consequence of that is that I don't believe we need to force someone at gunpoint to give what they have to B just because he has been unlucky (ie: theft). This is what I mean as opposed to defining B as a victim (not to be confused with saying he wasn't a victim of some terrible shit that happened).

Further, if B had any kind of bad luck that caused him to have a lower earning potential than A, all other things being equal in terms of talent, abilities, hard work, etc., then what difference does it make what you label that? It's bad luck and has nothing to do with 'deserving' anything.

Regarding the bold, I just want to reiterate that the difference isn't in labeling what happened to him; it's a difference in labeling him as a person.

[Poopadoop]

Yes. A is under no obligation, moral or otherwise, to pay for B's misfortune. Forcing A to pay for B's misfortune is theft.



What I said was: "...your first inclination is to define B as a victim." You seem to misunderstand what I mean, so I'll clarify: My first inclination is to assume that he's strong enough as a human being to overcome his hardships (which can include accepting charity given voluntarily from A or some other party) and achieve his potential, whatever that may be after his hardships, in spite of those hardships. One consequence of that is that I don't believe we need to force someone at gunpoint to give what they have to B just because he has been unlucky (ie: theft). This is what I mean as opposed to defining B as a victim (not to be confused with saying he wasn't a victim of some terrible shit that happened).



Regarding the bold, I just want to reiterate that the difference isn't in labeling what happened to him; it's a difference in labeling him as a person.

The whole premise of your model seems to be that people get what they deserve in terms of their earnings,and if even they don't that's not a good enough reason to redistribute wealth.

So, if A makes £3m a year due at least in some part to good luck (or lack of bad luck if you will), whereas B makes a lot less than that, A is in his rights to say 'not my problem, luck smiled on me and not someone else' to the government who would take some of his salary (a portion mind you, not all of it) and use it to pay for B's lightning burn treatments?

[spoonitnow]

The whole premise of your model seems to be that people get what they deserve in terms of their earnings,and if even they don't that's not a good enough reason to redistribute wealth.

So, if A makes £3m a year due at least in some part to good luck (or lack of bad luck if you will), whereas B makes a lot less than that, A is in his rights to say 'not my problem, luck smiled on me and not someone else' to the government who would take some of his salary (a portion mind you, not all of it) and use it to pay for B's lightning burn treatments?

Your issue is that you're determining what B deserves based on what A is earning. That's not how deserving something works.

[Poopadoop]

Your issue is that you're determining what B deserves based on what A is earning. That's not how deserving something works.

Nope, I'm not. I'm using them as an example to illustrate how 'earning' and 'deserving' sound like synonyms, but aren't necessarily synonymous when it comes to income.

If I had argued that both A and B should have the exact same income regardless you might have a point there.

[spoonitnow]

Nope, I'm not. I'm using them as an example to illustrate how 'earning' and 'deserving' sound like synonyms, but aren't necessarily synonymous when it comes to income.

If I had argued that both A and B should have the exact same income regardless you might have a point there.

You're saying that B deserves more and that A deserves less, neither of which are true. What they deserve in terms of pay is between what their employer is willing to pay them and what they agree to work for. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Poopadoop]

You're saying that B deserves more and that A deserves less, neither of which are true. What they deserve in terms of pay is between what their employer is willing to pay them and what they agree to work for. Nothing more, nothing less.

Well then we disagree.